The Aesthetics of Dissent and Engagement: Art Out in the Real World THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Fine Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Mona Gazala Graduate Program in Art The Ohio State University 2020 Master's Examination Committee: Professor Carmel Buckley, Advisor Professor Todd Slaughter Associate Professor Karen Hutzel Copyrighted by Mona Gazala 2020 Abstract Columbus city schools are shut down for three days in October 2019 due to a lack of air conditioning in poorly-maintained school buildings. At the same time, it is revealed that millions in city funds may have been misappropriated to build a new soccer stadium. How can we as a city re-imagine civic priorities? How can social justice be locally organized? And what part do artists play in supporting change and justice; or conversely, in perpetuating the status quo? This paper reviews some of my work and observations over the past several years as an artist/activist and as a social practice artist, with the more recent events surrounding the “Save the Crew” soccer stadium campaign being the focus of my thesis exhibition artwork. In conjunction with this recent project, I will be presenting the 2017-2018 “As Seen in Franklinton” community photography campaign. In both of these projects, a marketing campaign or phrase was subverted to draw attention to the people who are not being served by Columbus’s neoliberal politics. I will explore the intersections of art and real life issues, in what ways the creative class has either helped draw attention to inequities in Columbus, or conversely, reaped the benefits of that inequity. What obligations do artists, academics, and culture-makers have to recognize and counter systemic oppression, racism, classism, and inequality? How can we lower barriers to participation in both art and social justice movements? And does political art - does anything we do as artists - even make a difference, in the real world? ii For Henry Green, 1993-2016. For Tyre King, 2003-2016. For Julius Tate, 2002-2019. iii Vita 1983................................................................North Olmsted High School 1988................................................................B.F.A Painting, The Ohio State University 1999-2016 ......................................................Single mother and low-wage laborer 2017 to present ..............................................Graduate Fellow, Department of Art, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Art Minor Field: City and Regional Planning iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii Vita ................................................................................................................................... iivi Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Introduction: The Columbus Way ..................................................................................... 2 1. Saving the Crew that Matters .......................................................................................... 6 2. What’s in a Sign: Text Art in Personal and Public Context ...... 1Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Artists in Communities: Three Levels of Engagment.................................................. 18 3A. Complicity .......................................................................................................... 21 3B. Resistance (Dissent) ........................................................................................... 22 3C. Engagement (and Creative Place-Keeping) ....................................................... 28 4. As Seen in Franklinton................................................................................................. 34 v 5.“Saving the Crew that Matters” and “As Seen in Franklinton:” Why these projects are representative of my overall practice ................................... 37 6. Politics in Art, Social Practice in Advocacy – Lowering the Barriers .......................... 40 6A. Acknowledging and Evaluating Social Practice ................................................. 41 6B. The Politics ARE the Aesthetics; Who Gets to Participate? ............................... 42 7. Conclusions: Neighborhoods and Cities, and How They are Visually Shaped ............ 43 References ......................................................................................................................... 50 vi List of Figures Figure 1. Jane Jacobs ......................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. The Columbus Plan ............................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Illuminated Sign .................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Save the Crew Signs .......................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Save the Crew Postcard ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 6. The Human Library ........................................................................................... 12 Figure 7. Remainder.......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8. Gentrification Sucks view 1 ............................................................................. 16 Figure 9. Right People view 1........................................................................................... 17 Figure 10. Text message ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 11. Ladder of Engagement .................................................................................... 20 Figure 12. Lauren Halsey. ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 13. Gentrification Sucks view 2 ........................................................................... 26 Figure 14. Right People view 2......................................................................................... 27 Figure 15. Rick Lowe ...................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16. Faces of Franklinton ....................................................................................... 32 Figure 17. #asseeninfraklinton banners ........................................................................... 33 Figure 18. #asseeninfranklinton launch ........................................................................... 35 Figure 19. #asseeninfranklinton launch ........................................................................... 36 Figure 20. #asseeninfranklinton launch ........................................................................... 36 vii Figure 21. West Village protest ....................................................................................... 45 Figure 22. Decolonize This Place .................................................................................... 46 Figure 23. Kobra mural .................................................................................................... 48 Figure 24. Cecily King ..................................................................................................... 48 viii Dissent Engagement Fig. 1 Text art by author. Text Source: Alexiou, Alice S., Jane Jacobs: Urban Visionary, Harper Collins Publishers, Ontario, 2006 1 Introduction : The Columbus Way In the year 1908, a planning commission, hired by a group of local businessmen, presented the city of Columbus, Ohio with its first comprehensive city plan. Published in the era of the “City Beautiful” movement, various strategies within the plan, including a formal park system and a grand civic mall extending from the state capital building to the Scioto River, were proposed to attract wealthy people to the city’s core where they would spend or invest money. These improvements were likewise meant to benefit the poor: through the beauty and grandeur of the new city environs, a sense of civic pride and decorum would grow. The idea that one could “elevate” the ideals or behavior of the poor through the built environment became known as “physical determinism” (Conroy, 2019). This is possibly one of the first formal examples of social control to be found in the nascent profession of urban planning. Other darker examples of social control would follow, in Columbus and elsewhere. But before leaving the 1908 Columbus city plan, I would have you turn to page 52, where a photograph documents an alley or street in a lower-income neighborhood near the banks of the Scioto River (Lord et al, 1908). Four neighborhood children stop to pose for the picture. They smile. “THE PROPOSED MALL,” reads the caption in all caps, “WILL WIPE OUT THIS SQUALID NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN ITS PLACE PROVIDE A PARK AND SOME OF THE BEST BUILDING SITES IN THE CITY.” This was “the Columbus Way.” 2 Fig 2. Source: